ARM505

Shift-P? Ctrl-P? I can't remember, the key combination is something like that (shift-p I think), but you can show your virtual body in the cockpit.

No, just an extra variable to make the one reading more closely reflect reality.

Did you seriously expect some kind of ultra-realistic systems simulation of the aircraft in ARMA2 (which 'grew up' as an infantry simulator)? And I just played an awesome couple of scenarios in the ARMA2 demo, my AI AT guys were nailing BRDM's with some great shots, with excellent reaction times. But if you don't like it, I'm not going to try and convince you. It's your choice. I do think you're expecting a bit much, and being very dismissive of some excellent features. Put it this way - I think you will remain permanently disappointed with non-study military sims. Don't get me wrong - in something of the scale of ARMA, there's massive room for improvement (damage model, systems simulation, AI etc etc) - but I think they've done a good job, and I think you're writing them off too quickly. I like to take the evolution of the product as a good sign, and don't expect perfection with such an awesomely complex undertaking. I also wish anybody who attempts a cross platform simulation the best of luck - they'll need it.

ARMA - Aiming at the pre-teen crowd?! So whats BF2/COD etc - aiming at those still in the womb?! And if you think the amount of work and evolution that's gone into ARMA 2 is a 'lousy, just throw it out job', then I think you misunderstand what's possible from a commercial company. I guess expectations nowdays are unrealistically high. Put it this way: You will NEVER be happy with an all-rounder game like ARMA, so at least you don't even need to try it. Next time you can even avoid the demo too! Time saved! I do believe that military sims like BS / Steelbeasts etc can eventually be combined in realistic ways, but to knock those that try with todays hardware and financial reality is a little short sighted, IMHO.

Beginner scenario follows: Flying along, sort of vaguely trimmed, but the nose is not quite on the heading cursor (let's say it's to the right of the cursor), so the heading AP is trying to yaw back to the cursor (in this case, left). So, the pilot compensates by adding right rudder (mistake), then trims (double mistake) - this then re-centres the cursor on the new heading, causing the heading AP to stop making inputs (it's now happy the aircraft is pointing in the 'trimmed' direction), BUT the loss of the heading AP inputs (which were to the left), AND the input of right rudder trim now results in a very strong yaw to the right, and confusing chaos for the new pilot. Something like that - hence, in the beginning, simply turn the heading AP channel OFF (regardless of real SOP), and learn to fly, without having to worry about where the AP thinks it should be heading. It can be unnecessarily confusing in the beginning, IMHO.

...I use the magnetic field from the shrapnel embedded in my head.

I don't think it's too long before it's technically possible - but for a developer to code something so awesomely complex in this financial world, where such a phenomenal quantity of work will still sell fewer copies than 'Super Mario Kart Deluxe!!!!!'....well, that will take a miracle.

Also, to eliminate the autopilot stabilisation system help as an issue, turn on the Flight Director mode (a flat blue button, to the right of the pilots right knee - it's the one by itself on the right of the group of four that look alike). This will just smooth the flight controls out, and not fight back a little - it may have some benefit to see what it's like without the system's input.

Yes. We wish! While they're at it, they must team up with Esim for Steel-Beasts-like armour simulation. Paradise!

The optical tracking system (IRL) works on tracking a shape that is distinct from the background. Hence, tracking just part of a uniform texture won't provide enough for the system to track that particular section of it. In the sim however, the computer can only track specific entities that are preselected as 'trackable'. The greatest disadvantage of this method can be seen when trying to track a destroyed wreck - IRL, the system would track it, whereas in the sim, a wreck cannot be locked up. And so, the way to ID a target in BS is to lock it up, switch to max zoom, and say to yourself 'What the hell is that?!?'

Or the other option......ED can remove SF entirely from FC, thus negating this and all future such issues.... :)

A T-80 is designed to try and resist 120mm APFSDS (basically a giant metal dart) ammo from the front aspect at least, and be very resistant to all kinds of tank killing ammo in general. Despite videos showing A-10's strafing tanks with giant sparks and dust clouds flying everywhere, you're unlikely to destroy a T-80 with the 30mm, and a CBU bomblet would have to land precisely on a vulnerable spot to kill one. The Maverick, on the other hand, is ideally suited to killing tanks. You're pretty much describing real life.

Even if the DFDR and CVR could float, the tons of metal aeroplane and structures to which they are mounted generally don't.... And who says the boxes needed to be stronger? Chances are, they have survived the event, and just need to be found - That's the hard part, despite their underwater location equipment. Given the origin of the aircraft (Airbus), and the carrier (AF), I've no doubt that the money will be spent to locate and investigate.

I don't have the answer for the Ka50 specifically, but in some aircraft the gauges are only driven with power applied - this means that the needles will simply stay where they were last, until power is reapplied. So it could be correct.

Thread resuscitation! Thanks for the idea FiKk, I didn't think of the garden hose option! I hope the local garden shop has something in the right diameter.

'Fighter Pilot', on the ZX Spectrum - a whole 48kb of RAM.

Surely not?

Single player - runs perfectly, always. Multiplayer - starts getting choppy after extended periods (30 min+ in mission), crashes on exit sometimes (does not require a hard reset, the process merely needs to be shut down). So, is that a yes or a no? No, I guess...but only for multiplayer, which somehow seems more demanding than single player, regardless of the number of units involved. My PC is a little old though: Core 2D E6850 @ 3.3 GHz GTS 8800, stock clocks 2 GB DDR2 (good quality, forgotten brand though) A motherboard, a mouse that needs cleaning underneath, a Cougar with some dust on one edge etc etc etc P.S. The light band thing, and sound volume thing are part and parcel of BS - they are not PC related.

I can't believe how popular the F's (-15/-16/-18 ) are. Haven't they been done PLENTY? Hell, there's even been another whole SERIES of sims about the F-16 alone, up to number 4, and even an -18 series!

Also downloaded it - a lot of file swapping of the installation files going on down here, since bandwith is painfully expensive, thanks to the local monopoly on telecoms. Anyway, nice to see sunny SA is catered for with the retail version.

No. With the Vikhr in LOMAC it could be done, but not with the realistic Vikhr in BS (it can't be done with the real missile either - I forget the technicalities, but something about the projected laser guidance 'grid' changing size automatically as the missile proceeds downrange, which corrects the dispersion problem of a beam rider. This system is not suited to guiding multiple missiles.)

DCS:BS's technical excellence in the modelling of the simulated platform only highlights the shortcomings in two 'worlds': 1) The online 'world': with no dedicated server software, it becomes tougher to set up persistant, controllable online battlegrounds. Witness the TK'ing etc that goes on, and the powerlessness (well, almost. Servman etc are helping, but it's not enough IMHO) that players and server managers have against offenders. 2) The virtual 'world': Simply put, not much happens when flying missions. I KNOW, the scripting of DCS:BS has greatly improved this over LO:FC, but you as the player still know that nothing happens that the mission designer didn't deliberately put there. Again, I KNOW Falcon 4's dynamic battlefield has plenty of limitations, but nonetheless, it still managed to make the player feel like just a small element of something larger. For me at least, F4's campaign worked well. I could pick and choose my flights and types of mission, knowing that I would face the chaos of a battlefield that had evolved on it's own. AI plays an enormous role in this 'suspension of disbelief' thing, and DCS's AI is a little lacking at the moment. This persistent battlefield present in F4 also helped the player to get to know the terrain he was fighting over, and built SA over time - you got to know where the frontlines were etc, and mission briefings somehow seemed more complete and 'alive' as you saw AI flights going about their business. With BS, I feel like I've been led to the heli with a black bag over my head, and am now told 'The bad guys are over there, go find them!'. I have no idea whats going on other than that. Just my thoughts.

Hi all, Does anybody other than Urze (who seems a little busy at the moment) make extensions for the Cougar, to move the joystick handle further from the base? Thanks!

I also found that the phantom monitor fix exe sometimes needs a bit of 'encouragement', ie I have to alt-tab out of DCS, and double click/unpause the script. Something like that, but I've found it doesn't simply work whilst leaving the exe running in the background - it may just be me or my system though.

Actually, I find this quite a significant limitation. IRL, a destroyed AFV can often look very much like an intact one (AT weapons being what they are, sometimes the only obvious outward sign is a tiny little hole, and some blast marks), and I've read of a number of occurences where tankers (for example) put multiple rounds through a target already destroyed by preceding forces, which is a tactically significant waste of time and ammo. Plus, in the game, you always know when a vehicle is destroyed, ie the Shkval loses lock - if they ever update the armour model, and multiple (but not a constant number like we have now) hits are required to destroy a target, this is going to become a lot more significant. Even now, when close range missile shots can sometimes impact close to, but not on target, it's too easy to know when your shots actually killed the target. I agree, this isn't some kind of obvious deal breaker - but it could certainly make quite some difference in how the game is played in many cases, since it impacts on the simulated platform's primary weapon. I'm sure the technical reasons for it being simulated this way are overriding though.